A+A on Brexit - The Return of the Living Dead

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Would that be Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson?

No doubt bringing Jimmy Saville's touch to the country's foreign affairs.

BTW, a spokesman from the US state department seems to have had trouble processing the news and after briefly composing himself, went on to explain that the US is "always going to be able to work with the British no matter who is occupying the role of Foreign Secretary."

High praise indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoohnpHq1dA

robindch

From the flood of articles describing the ongoing national and international cluster*uck which is brexit, here are two worth reading. The first is a look at Andrea Leadsom, Teresa May's now-defeated rival for the top job:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/09/andrea-leadsom-tory-leadership-am-dram-peasant-revolt

And here's a former High Commissioner of Canada to the United Kingdom with a fairly realistic review of recent events in the UK:

https://www.opencanada.org/features/brexit-post-mortem-17-takeaways-fallen-david-cameron/

FA Hayek

robindch wrote: »

No doubt bringing Jimmy Saville's touch to the country's foreign affairs.

To be honest, you be critical of the Tories and Boris but that remark is beyond repute. Comparing him to a known child abuser and pedophile is disgusting.

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

[...] that remark is beyond repute.

I'll argue that one. Saville might well have abused the trust, offended, hurt and damaged hundreds or thousands of people directly, and did the same, indirectly, to the country, its institutions and its reputation.

But Johnson and the rest of the individuals in the Leave campaign abjured the abuse of individuals while instead choosing to abuse the trust of millions by spinning a cleverly-constructed mirage of deceit and xenophobia for the purposes of advancing their own careers at the cost of others. One abuse is emotional and physical while one is political, but both remain abuses of trust.

recedite

Nevertheless Boris wins again.
Gets a top job, while Cameron goes off to join Tony Blair, our Bertie, and George Bush on the lecture circuit, or getting paid to be listed as a director of some random company.
Boris and Cameron, both Eton classmates, but only Boris got in on a scholarship.
As the new Foreign Secretary, he may have to steer clear of Turkey for a while though. Boris' acclaimed poetry, for those who missed it

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Nevertheless Boris wins again.

Depends on your definition of "win". As one German newspaper said yesterday, Boris must now sleep in the bed he has made for himself - presumably Turkey is off limits for the time being, the French Foreign Minister called him "a liar"; Germany’s foreign minister said that his behaviour has been "deceitful and reckless"; European commission vice-president suggested that Boris is a racist and a hate-monger; and his first speech as Foreign Secretary saw him retreat at the end to a hail of boos. One can only wonder if his reception is likely to be any warmer anywhere else - though May could always find a problem in the Antarctic which needs Boris' gentle touch and given that he's hardly abandoned his political ambitions, I'm sure she'd be happy to see him out of the country as much as possible.

Meanwhile, May has generally deployed Brexiteers to positions of responsibility for dealing with brexit - a process which is unlikely to end well for the country or the politicians concerned - and signals, once again, that the Conservatives are more interested in dealing temporarily with their own party's internal political strife than doing the job of running the country which they were elected to do.

Here's a fairly realistic assessment of May's brexit options from here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit

recedite

robindch wrote: »

European commission vice-president suggested that Boris is a racist and a hate-monger;

That kind of allegation seems to be some kind of "hate speech" in itself.

...and his first speech as Foreign Secretary saw him retreat at the end to a hail of boos.

He looks to be grinning, not retreating from the haters. Anyway, being booed by a bunch of frogs is not necessarily a bad thing in some constituencies.

robindch wrote: »

Here's a fairly realistic assessment of May's brexit options from here:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit

The whole thing is based on a false premise; that the UK will trigger Brexit and then sit on its hands for the next two years, instead of instigating alternative arrangements and trade deals.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

The whole thing is based on a false premise; that the UK will trigger Brexit and then sit on its hands for the next two years, instead of instigating alternative arrangements and trade deals.

By false premise, do you mean legal obligation?

recedite

Pseudo-legalistic nonsense, more like.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Pseudo-legalistic nonsense, more like.

hmm. Legal I believe actually.

recedite

It has already started. Without getting hung up on the word "preliminary", it is obvious that no trade deal can take effect until the UK has officially left the EU. That is the actual restriction resulting from the law being referred to.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

It has already started. Without getting hung up on the word "preliminary", it is obvious that no trade deal can take effect until the UK has officially left the EU. That is the actual restriction resulting from the law being referred to.

from the link

Government sources said talks were unlikely to go into great detail but would provide an early platform for future negotiations. Javid said he would use the discussions to outline the government’s “vision for what the UK’s future trade relationship might look like”.

That indeed does seem a very reasonable and prudent thing to do. Set out 'how we might find a deal' in the future, who talks to who etc. Very little in the way of nitty gritty which of course is the problem, given that the arguments over the dots on an i and the cross on a t are what is going to be the most difficult and lengthy parts of all of this.

Interesting of course to listen to people speaking to the parliamentary committee the other day about their thoughts on the matter. Both agree that 'where there's a will there's a way' with regards to getting up and running, but both were very negative about the prospects of full and worthwhile engagement, on anything like the 'wanted' terms.

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-7ed7-48b3-9643-472e6be0462e

Witnesses: Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy, Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute

That's from an economic and absolutely not a legal perspective.

Here's the legal perspective, questions asked by the same committee of some legal experts.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/cb083c53-3998-4f3a-8eca-e114e3dbdf0b

Witnesses: Professor Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law, University of Liverpool, Dr Robin Niblett CMG, Director, Chatham House, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, former UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and Raoul Ruparel, Co-Director, Open Europe.

Here are two other videos created by one of the witnesses that help to describe both the legal situation before the vote and now in legal situation in the 'post vote pre Article 50' limbo position.

Quite a lot of video to cover there, and am not expecting you to do so unless you really are interested. I have been through the lot though. Ignoring that there are very real legal issues is not really an option I'm afraid.

recedite

I notice that you are (wisely) not quite backing the false premise that no trade negotiations will take place until after UK has completely left the EU.

I like the Prof. Dougan video, he is a straight talker. Just to pick out one point, his idea that the compatibility of the "regulatory environment" is more important to international trade than simple export tariffs (which can be slapped on or off quite easily). This is correct, but he ignores the fact that Chinese goods can be CE marked and sold in the EU now, despite China being outside the EU. So, in reality the UK after Brexit will be forced into manufacturing its goods to EU standards. BS standards will continue to mimic EN standards. That is not a major imposition, it is just a slight loss of status. We were in the same position for years ourselves vis á vis the UK; so when they switched to 3 pin plugs, we did too. We copied all their regulatory standards, and our electrical appliances ran at a compatible voltage and hertz. The UK will be in the same kind of relationship with the EU; forced to ape all the relevant standards, simply localising the names and title pages.

The overall problem that Brexit has exposed in the EU is that it has grown too far too soon, so that it now falls somewhere between a common market and a federation. The euro has been a disaster for peripheral countries. The Schengen borderless core has been a disaster, in the absence of external borders.

The UK has shown it can change. The next stage is for the EU to change into a two-tier organisation. Tier 1 needs more federalisation; a banking union, central fiscal policies, a common tax and social welfare zone, an effective external border. Within Tier 1, the citizens of peripheral countries should not be disadvantaged as they are now. A car should be the same price in Ireland as it is in Germany. A mortgage should be loaned out at the same interest rate.

Tier 2 needs to be just a common market, without free movement of people. Countries such as the UK, Norway, Switzerland would prefer this. Also, the accession countries such as Romania should have been required to remain in Tier 2 for several decades or as long as it took for their economies, political, and justice systems to "harmonise" with the Tier 1 countries.

EU and EEA is what you are proposing.

They exist.

While we don't have an overarching federal structure, there are 'agreements' which aim to create a somewhat federal system. Growth & Stability Pact is in effect an attempt at a fiscal union, though without debt mutualisation and/or enormous wealth transfers (these occur through EU structural Grants though).

I would be one who still is unsure about what all the fuss is behind actually aiming and being outright and straight about the idea of the "United States of Europe". I understand that it won't be formed overnight, but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with being open about that being 'the plan' for the EU.

BoatMad

I would be one who still is unsure about what all the fuss is behind actually aiming and being outright and straight about the idea of the "United States of Europe". I understand that it won't be formed overnight, but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with being open about that being 'the plan' for the EU.

IN practice the Eurozone is just that a US of E. There are elements missing , but they are being considered

BoatMad

The whole thing is based on a false premise; that the UK will trigger Brexit and then sit on its hands for the next two years, instead of instigating alternative arrangements and trade deals.

what alternative arrangements. The EU accounts for close to 50% of its trade and is of huge strategic importance to the UK tech industry and finance industries in particular

It CANNOT arrange bilateral trade deals with EU members, hence it can only arrange deals with non EU countries, many of which are not of much economic importance to the UK. Equally any major trade deal , like with the US, or china , will take years to accomplish and will only be likely too happen POST the completion of the Article 50 process, when other countries can see the certainty. The whole issue with NI and Scottish desires to remain in the EU will also have to be resolved before any third trade deal will be signed

The fact is simple , the leave campaign was full of disingenuous lies and the UK has f&cked itself in the process . There is no upside

robindch

The uncertainty continues - who has the necessary authority to execute Article 50? Parliament and the PM each seem to think they do; the legal establishment agrees with one side, but not the other; the judiciary is unhappy treading in this area; a legal decision in favour of Parliament could trigger further political and constitutional problems.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/how-a-hairdresser-s-lawsuit-could-spell-trouble-for-brexit-1.2749034

recedite

The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.

In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.

Of more interest to us is maintaining the free trade status between Ireland and the UK. In an ideal world this would be a no-brainer because both of us want to maintain a free trade arrangement.

But in this brave new world where all the big EU decisions are made in Berlin, we must wait to receive our orders. The EU demands will be decided by Merkel and presented to the French for agreement, and then subsequently rubber-stamped at an EU Council of Ministers meeting. Apparently Merkel is less enthusiastic about "punishing" the UK with hefty trade tariffs, compared to the French attitude, which is good.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.

What authority do the people have via referendum in the British Kingdom?

I though we were all told prior to the referendum that it wasn't actually binding; Parliament could legally ignore it?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.

In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.

Well, it's not that simple.

Certainly, in my view, the UK government can give Art. 50 notice to the EU and, at the expiry of the notice period, the UK will cease to be a member of the Union, regardless of what (if anything) Parliament says.

But that won't achieve what Brexiters want. EU legislation has the force of law in the UK because the European Communities Act 1972 - an Act of the UK Parliament - says it does. And even if the UK leaves the Union, EU law will continue to apply in the UK until Parliament amends or repeals that Act.

So, to achieve what they seek to achieve through Brexit, they do need to get Parliament on board.

Similarly, whatever replacement arrangements are put in place as between the UK and the EU, and whatever arrangements are going to be put in place between the UK and third countries, are almost certain to require measures which can only be implemented by the UK Parliament.

And there's a wider point. The only reason the UK government - any UK government - holds office is because it enjoys the confidence of Parliament. If they have a major policy commitment - like Brexit - which they can't get through Parliament, they either have to abandon the policy commitment (which at this point is politically unthinkable) or dissolve Parliament and go to the country which they really, really don't want to do.

So, on the one hand the government doesn't need parliamentary approval to serve the Art. 50 notice, which commits the UK to leaving come what may. On the other hand, as a political reality they can't do this unless they are sure that Parliament will co-operate to implement the Brexit and the successor/replacement arrangements.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

What authority do the people have via referendum in the British Kingdom?

The people have as much authority as Parliament grants them. The Act of Parliament which provides for the holding of a referendum will say what the legal effects of the referendum result will be. If it doesn't provide for th result to have any effect, it's merely advisory.

For example, when it came to Scottish devolution, the (UK) Parliament passed an Act to establish a Scottish Parliament and executive, to devolve powers to it, etc. But they included provisions in the Act to say (a) that there was first of all to be a referendum, and (b) that the rest of the Act would come into operation a fixed period after being approved in that referendum.

The result was, when the referendum result was declared, that was effective to bring Scottish devolution into effect some months later. No further action by the UK Parliament was required because the UK Parliament had already decreed that this was how the referendum would work.

Absolam wrote: »

I though we were all told prior to the referendum that it wasn't actually binding; Parliament could legally ignore it?

Yes, that's right. Legally speaking, the Brexit referendum was just a very large opinion poll. The legislation for the conduct of that referendum doesn't provide for the declaration of the result to have any legal consequences or effect at all.

Politically, of course, it creates a strong mandate for leaving the EU. And the mandate is all the stronger because the Tory government was elected on an explicit manifesto promise to (a) hold the referendum, and (b) respect the result. At this point they have to leave, unless they seek and obtain a new mandate to remain which would supersede the mandate conferred by the referendum. And right now I don't see that happening.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.

Not sure if you had time to read the article fully - but the hairdresser, together with a number of other people, are taking a case likely to end up before the UK's Supreme Court regarding hether Article 50 can be triggered without a vote in parliament.

The interesting aspect of this being that the case is likely to pit various state institutions against each other in a way which most have tried to avoid.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.

And a ream of legal experts too of course.

recedite wrote: »

In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.

Parliament is Sovereign in the UK. Referendum advisory.

recedite wrote: »

Of more interest to us is maintaining the free trade status between Ireland and the UK. In an ideal world this would be a no-brainer because both of us want to maintain a free trade arrangement.

Of course. Even neglible tarrifs and customs hinder trade massively between the two states. Any change whatsoever from the current status quo results in further friction in trade, meaning further costs in trade.

recedite wrote: »

But in this brave new world where all the big EU decisions are made in Berlin, we must wait to receive our orders. The EU demands will be decided by Merkel and presented to the French for agreement, and then subsequently rubber-stamped at an EU Council of Ministers meeting. Apparently Merkel is less enthusiastic about "punishing" the UK with hefty trade tariffs, compared to the French attitude, which is good.

Is this new world newer than June of this year? When were the treaty changes?

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-15/the-myth-of-germany-s-dominance-in-the-eu

The highest-ranking German in the EU hierarchy is Martin Schulz, president of the European parliament. The EU legislature is weaker than any of its members' own national parliaments, unable even to initiate legislation. It's the faceless technocrats on the European Commission's staff that do that, and Germans only make up 10 percent of the commission's non-technical staff, while Germany's population makes up 16 percent of the European Union's.

Germany is, indeed, a little overrepresented when it comes to contributing money to EU programs. Its 2015 economic output was about 20.7 percent of the entire EU's, but its share of the EU budget reached 21.4%.

Germany, of course, is the bloc's biggest economic power and its most populous country, but if the EU were designed to give an institutional advantage to bigger countries, nobody would have joined it in the first place.

In 2016, German dominance in the EU is a myth. The only advantage Germany has over its neighbors is a stronger economy.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The people have as much authority as Parliament grants them.

I respectfully disagree. Its the other way round.
Being an unwritten constitution, you won't find the answer written down anywhere. But you can go back and look at the evolution of the state and at historical precedent.
In theory the monarch is ultimately in charge, but she delegates the powers of government to Parliament, which in turn delegates governance to a subset which is the Cabinet.

A previous monarch got stripped of his powers by Cromwell and beheaded. But only because enough people had backed Cromwell and his republicans. But subsequently the people changed their minds and restored the monarchy. Since then the Parliament and the Monarchy have in theory ruled by consensus, at the insistence of the people.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, that's right. Legally speaking, the Brexit referendum was just a very large opinion poll. The legislation for the conduct of that referendum doesn't provide for the declaration of the result to have any legal consequences or effect at all. Politically, of course, it creates a strong mandate for leaving the EU. And the mandate is all the stronger because the Tory government was elected on an explicit manifesto promise to (a) hold the referendum, and (b) respect the result. At this point they have to leave, unless they seek and obtain a new mandate to remain which would supersede the mandate conferred by the referendum. And right now I don't see that happening.

Yes and No. The referendum is a direct mandate from the people. As such it supersedes the mandate of the Tories to interpret and represent the wishes of the electorate who elected them.
Neither mandate is written down, but of the two, the direct mandate is stronger. Both mandates rely on an honour system. For example, if a PM loses the confidence of the people's representatives in Parliament, he/she voluntarily goes to the monarch to resign. That way, nobody gets beheaded.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Not sure if you had time to read the article fully - but the hairdresser, together with a number of other people, are taking a case likely to end up before the UK's Supreme Court regarding whether Article 50 can be triggered without a vote in parliament.

The interesting aspect of this being that the case is likely to pit various state institutions against each other in a way which most have tried to avoid.

I have read it. Where does it say that Parliament intends to defy the referendum result and will refuse to pass any legislation required?
Just because a hairdresser thinks they should, does not mean it will happen, or is even likely to happen.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

I have read it. Where does it say that Parliament intends to defy the referendum result and will refuse to pass any legislation required?
Just because a hairdresser thinks they should, does not mean it will happen, or is even likely to happen.

The Parliament not saying it has to be consulted (equally, has also not said that it does not!) is not the same as the Parliament saying that it does not need to be consulted.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this new world newer than June of this year? When were the treaty changes?

So you think we will have a say in what trade tariffs, if any, are introduced between the UK and Ireland?
For example, where was Enda Kenny when these two meetings were being held, one on the Monday and one on the Saturday after the Brexit referendum?
Germany's modus operandi is to make a policy, then get agreement in progressively widening circles. By the time Ireland gets to hear about it, the new policy is being presented as a fait accompli and we have no choice but to agree and rubber stamp it an official council of ministers meeting.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

The Parliament not saying it has to be consulted (equally, has also not said that it does not!) is not the same as the Parliament saying that it does not need to be consulted.

That is known as "a moot point".

recedite

recedite wrote: »

So you think we will have a say in what trade tariffs, if any, are introduced between the UK and Ireland?

We will have the exact same say as Lithuania, or Italy, Or Germany in fact.

recedite wrote: »

For example, where was Enda Kenny when these two meetings were being held, one on the Monday and one on the Saturday after the Brexit referendum?

Neither of those meetings were to set trade tariffs . Given that the UK has not presented what it wants from the EU, there is almost no discussion to be had about what tariffs might be necessary. The UK electing to join EFTA would see tariffless trade continue as is, just a removal from the Political element of the EU.

recedite wrote: »

Germany's modus operandi is to make a policy, then get agreement in progressively widening circles.

Shocking idea. Put forward an idea, then garner support for it. Crazy stuff.

recedite wrote: »

By the time Ireland gets to hear about it, the new policy is being presented as a fait accompli and we have no choice but to agree and rubber stamp it an official council of ministers meeting.

Did you read the article that I linked? Who does the negotiations on the part of the EU? The 'faceless technocrats' yes? Of which there demonstrably is no bias towards Germany.

It's the faceless technocrats on the European Commission's staff that do that, and Germans only make up 10 percent of the commission's non-technical staff, while Germany's population makes up 16 percent of the European Union's.

If a 'fait accompli' is presented to the European Council then that is the same for all members of the Council, and certainly, certainly not to any tangible benefit to Germany.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you read the article that I linked? Who does the negotiations on the part of the EU? The 'faceless technocrats' yes? Of which there demonstrably is no bias towards Germany.

I did yes. The main jist of the article exaggerates the importance of the European Commission, but if you read it carefully the only thing it says they do is to "initiate legislation". But at the behest of who?
Its like saying that TD's in the Dail do not have much influence over our domestic legislation because "faceless civil servants draught the Dail bills". The European Commission has zero authority in the EU.